Edgar, I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an orderly or logical manner.
>From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday! If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views... Jason On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's >> consistent with SR. >> > > Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an > answer to this problem which exists in SR. > > >> >> I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared >> present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong >> with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let >> you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the >> fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present >> moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock >> that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but >> having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and >> by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our >> clocks are the same or not. >> >> There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, >> and I've given the logical reasoning... >> > > What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity > does not or cannot? > > Thanks for your answers. > > Jason > > > >> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Liz, >>>> >>>> We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. >>>> >>>> >>> You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it >>> what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer >>> without a defined reference frame). >>> >>> However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact >>> moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his >>> fifth birthday or not? >>> >>> If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I >>> think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some >>> mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it >>> does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity? >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Liz, >>>>>> >>>>>> I answered Jason directly. See that post. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> By not answering, yes. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common >>>>>> present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again >>>>>> you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to >>>>>> Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From >>>>> what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's >>>>> say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - >>>>> they >>>>> are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying >>>>> that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - >>>>> should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high >>>>> energy >>>>> cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested >>>>> experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from the >>>>> response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a >>>>> mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen, >>>>> before it can really be called a theory. >>>>> >>>>> Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some >>>>> reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and >>>>> does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's "obvious", >>>>> and "no one understands you" isn't enough (well, not unless you're a >>>>> teenager, at least.) >>>>> >>>>> See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for >>>>> any number of approaches that might make this understandable. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
